Talk:Boeing 747

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Boeing 747 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 9, 2008.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 12, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
October 28, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
December 31, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Primary users?[edit]

Obviously British Airways has the biggest 747 fleet but I am curious what qualifies KLM, United Airlines and Lufthansa as "primary users"? The 747 is way more common in asia and many asian airlines have a much bigger 747 fleet then they have. 88.151.72.75 (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Normal practice for airliners that are still in service is to list them by the size of the current fleet, when the type is retired they will be changed to the more significant or largest fleet during the types life. A bit of original research indicates this is the current fleet size list:
  • British Airways 55
  • Atlas Air 36
  • Qantas 25
  • United 24
  • Lufthansa 22
  • KLM 22
  • Cathay Pacific 18

So really Atlas Air and Qantas should be added instead of Lufthansa and KLM. MilborneOne (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Lufthansa is the only two-times 747 launch customer (-200F and -8i) and thus sure worth mentioning. 46.115.74.1 (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to add an updated version of this list:
British Airways: 55
Atlas Air: 39
Lufthansa: 36
United: 23
KLM: 22
Qantas: 12
Cathay Pacific: 3

The list of "Primary Users" really should be the following:
British Airways
Atlas Air
Lufthansa
United

Just because Lufthansa was the launch customer for the -200 freighter and the -8 intercontinental doesn't mean they have the second most, which is how the primary users should be listed. Rufusmi (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"Primary" can also be defined by importance, and Lufthansa´s contribution and involvement to its developement from the beginnings in the 60ies (ask Joe Sutter himself) to evolvement into the -400 in the 80ies (they were the most vocal airline to demand a two-man flightdeck) and finally into the -8i is outstanding and incomparable to any other airline. 89.204.138.20 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

TWA Flight 800[edit]

Sadly this was probably shot down by the US navy. Hence the complete lack of urgency in implementing a 'fix'. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I hate to see the plane cop the blame for something that wasn't its fault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.70.30.27 (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

TWA Flight 800 already covers such theories. Wikipedia talk pages are meant to be for improving articles, not as discussion forums. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Air Force One[edit]

Shouldn't it be listed some where that the new Air Force One will be a 747-8?--Airplane Maniac (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The selection is covered at Boeing 747-8, Boeing VC-25 and Air Force One already. However, there's been no aircraft order with this yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean by "there's been no aircraft order with this yet."--AM (I would LOVE to talk!) 18:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
They have not actually signed anything all they have said is they have decided to order it in the future or to quote "This decision is not a contract award to procure 747-8 aircraft,' said Col. Amy McCain, the Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization (PAR) program manager. 'We still need to finalize the overall acquisition strategy and conduct risk-reduction activities with Boeing to inform the engineering and manufacturing development contract negotiations that will define the capabilities and cost.' " MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok. I still think it should be mentioned though... Thoughts?--AM (I would LOVE to talk!) 19:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
It is mentioned in Boeing 747-8, Boeing VC-25 and Air Force One so even if ordered is not really notable here, we only mention the current VC-25s Air Force in the variants section so I dont see why we should mention the proposed buy. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 37 external links on Boeing 747. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Incorporate Template:RP?[edit]

With all of the repeated citations, is there any objection to incorporating Template:RP into this article? It will make the number of footnotes much smaller while retaining all of the information. Scotteaton92 (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Not than many repeated citations and adding rp doesnt actually reduce the number and probably introduces more clutter in the article, probably best to leave alone. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
RP does reduce the number of sources in the reference list by consolidating references to different pages of a single book into one line (E.G. there are 11 citation lines to Irving 1994 right now that would be reduced to 1 citation line.) I still think it is worth changing. Scotteaton92 (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Use of RP will make virtually no difference to the number of citations in the article - most are single use calls of cite web, while it makes it harder to follow a reference to the source and harder to edit based on your changes to the King Air article, where you hid references away as List defined references.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I feel that it makes it easier to follow a reference to the source. The mouseover of the note shows the entire citation, rather than just a name and year. I also feel that list defined references are not difficult to edit. If the references are in a list sorted in some manner (I chose to sort alphabetically by author) it is easier to find the definition of the reference than if it is in some place (possibly not the first instance) in the body. Adding additional citations is also easy when using the named reference tool in the editing window. Scotteaton92 (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The rp template only applies to references with pages, such as books and magazines. The template does not apply to web articles/pages of a single page. Almost all the repeated references in this article are the single-page web articles. The book and magazine sources use shortened footnotes, which can be linked together if needed. There little use for this template in this article and not much benefit. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the rp template only applies to references with pages. I did a count, and found that if the rp template were used here, there would be 48 fewer items (48 unique lines and 56 instances) in the reference list. I think that this is a substantial improvement, as it would reduce a significant portion of clutter in the references. I would not say that there is "little use for this template in this article and not much benefit." Scotteaton92 (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Boeing 747. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

need pics of 747s[edit]

Email to cinderella7321@gmail.com. Any pics of 747 airplanes please :) Cinderella7321 (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Boeing considering ending 747 production[edit]

Numerous sources (WSJ, CNN, USA Today) have reported Boeing's regulatory filing stating that 747 production could be terminated based on insufficient demand. Should this new event be added to the "Development" section? Helmut von Moltke (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Not here yet. The statement have only says Boring may end production in the near future. Wikipedia is not a news service. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
But wouldn't you say that Boeing even considering a complete halt to production of the 747 is a somewhat major development in its aviation career? Helmut von Moltke (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I concur with Fnl that it's too early to mention here yet. When Boeing publicly announces it, then we report it. - BilCat (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
But Boeing has announced it in their own SEC regulatory filing, which clearly notes "lower than expected demand for large commercial passenger and freighter aircraft" and brings up halting 747 production as a possible consequence of "market uncertainty, pricing pressures, and fewer orders than anticipated. Since the source for this news is a company report, I believe that this development merits inclusion in the article.
Per WP:CRYSTAL, "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." I think that this segment exactly describes what we are discussing here, which further supports mentioning Boeing's announcement in the article. Helmut von Moltke (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Queen of the Skies[edit]

"The Boeing 747 is an American wide-body commercial jet airliner and cargo aircraft, often referred to by its original nickname, Jumbo Jet, or Queen of the Skies."

While no one would question that "Jumbo Jet" is a very common nickname, this statement also implies that the nickname "Queen of the Skies" is used "often". I have personally never heard that name used, and I question whether "often" is justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.9.190 (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I concur, "Queen..." is used only in aeronautical journals at my knowledge, whereas "Jumbo" is universal. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Boeing 747. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2017[edit]

Chapter Display:

The cockpit section of B-747-338, former Qantas VH-EBW, is under transformation to an public flight simulator in the Flieger-Flab-Museum in Duebendorf, Switzerland. (Source: www.airforcecenter.ch, me as technical project leader). B727PeterK (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

We would not normally include this type of information as it has no encyclopedic value when complete aircraft are on display. MilborneOne (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Specifications Table: Cruise speed[edit]

The speeds given jump all over as to which measurements are used: miles/hour, kilometers/hour, knots, or mach. Should probably list it converted to all of those (in the same order) for each entry, so that people can compare them. Also, there seems to be an error in the figures given for the 747SP & the 747-400 disagree: Mach goes from .86 down to .855, but the mi/hr speed goes up from 568 to 580? (And the next row, Airspeed, should be shown in the measurement(s) as this row. T bonham (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

More coherent now. SP cruise was at higher FL than -400/-8 thus different conversion (see convert templates in history). I removed it as I didn't found it in the ref and it was indeed hard to comprehend. Max airspeed is different from cruise speed.Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

747SP range[edit]

Just pointing out a problem for which I have no solution. The 747SP range listed in the specifications table here is inconsistent with the table entry in the 747SP article, but more importantly, grossly inconsistent with the whole concept of the SP as a longer-range version of the 747-200, since both this article and the SP article show the SP as having a much shorter range than the 747-200. Also the published data about the 747SP delivery flights from Everett, WA to Cape Town, SA says those flights covered a distance of 10,215 miles with two hours of reserves. They carried extra fuel, but it amounted to only a few percent. All this leads me to the conclusion that the SP's actual range must be considerably in excess of what is stated here... but I haven't found a reliable source that would justify any changes. Maybe someone else will have better luck. 76.22.118.146 (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The SP (700,000lb mtow) is a -100 (735,000lb mtow) shrink, not a -200 (833,000lb mtow) derivative, so it's longer range than the -100 but was dropped since the -200 was better. The 747SP was wrong, it's updated from the obviously reliable Boeing source with both : Boeing 2007. Delivery flights are without payload (and PAE-CPT benefits from tailwinds: 511 knots average for 17h22), so it could reach further (see the PL/range chart in the ref, perhaps 8000nm ESAD with aux tanks). --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
You're right about the -100 point; I should have said "alternative to" rather than "version of." But Boeing continued to represent the SP as the longest-range 747 variant long after the -200B became available, and airlines continued to buy it for that reason. See Flight 1975 for example where the SP's range is shown as 5,700 nm vs. 5,280 nm for the -200B. Maybe we need something more than the raw data to resolve or at least explain the apparent contradiction. 76.22.118.146 (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
In this 1975 Flight article, the SP taxi gross weight is 663,000lb vs 778,000lb for the -200, which explains why the -200 ended up having a similar range later at 833,000lb mtow as showed in the recent 2007 Boeing ref.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
A little more information. A document titled "SAA 747 SP delivery flight special instructions" at the Harl V. Brackin Library at the Museum of Flight in Seattle (online catalog record at [1] ) gives the following figures for the fuel capacity of the first 747SP delivered from Everett, WA, USA to Cape Town, South Africa: Total fuel loaded, 398,371 pounds. Fuel at takeoff: 396,063 pounds, broken down as 269,156 pounds in the wing tanks, 112,691 pounds in the center tank, 13,399 pounds in the "pillow" tanks in the cargo bays, and 817 pounds in the fuel manifolds and lines. According to separate press coverage, the fuel used was PhilJet A-130, a high-energy fuel, but I can't find the density or other specifications of that fuel, so I can't calculate the volumetric fuel capacity of this particular 747SP from the fuel weight. The wing and center tank figures add to 381,847 pounds, however, and if the weight of A-130 is somewhere between Jet A and Jet A-1, the volume of the fuel would be somewhere between 55,945 and 57,029 US gallons, well above than the capacity stated in that Boeing document you cite above (50,259 US gallons). Since it's well known that Boeing offered customers more customization options than it described publicly, it's quite possible that the SAA aircraft were equipped to hold more fuel and therefore had more range than the reference aircraft described in the Boeing document. 76.22.118.146 (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

hull losses and total fatalities in the lede?[edit]

The lede should provide summary information that's useful. A large plane with a long history will show a large number of fatalities which, without context, is useless information. How about "fatalities per passenger mile" or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.11.48 (talk) 06:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Its not something we would usual do in the lead unless it was a well reported issue like the F-104, it is in this case mentioned in the accidents and incidents section. MilborneOne (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
It's certainly not useless since it's the main point on the subject. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarise the sections and the sentence adequately summarise Boeing_747#Accidents_and_incidents. Fatalities per RPK is a higher level concept which isn't even present in the section, and for which we should have a WP:reliable source. There is Boeing's Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents showing the Hull loss with/without fatalities accident rate per million departures though.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Boeing 747. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

main pic[edit]

As discussed in Talk:Boeing_737#Infobox_picture, a 747-100/200/300 pic would be more opportune here as it exists the SP, -400 and -8 articles with their own version main pic. Of course vintage pics will have vintage liveries and grainy film photos, but they convey also the era of the aircraft.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

As I went trough classic 747 pics, it struck me the most obvious would be a Pan Am, as the airline was so influential in its design. Here are the 3/4 views I picked:

The fourth (Clipper Unity) looks good.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I would support a change to Clipper Unity. MilborneOne (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Pan Am 747 would have historical value. May I suggest the following, which is very similar to the Clipper Unity photo (although that one is good)? This one (Clipper Storm King) is a bit less grainy. Oh and as a side note it's N732PA, which is the 3rd 747 built and was part of the 747 test fleet! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Indeed Storm King is even better--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for suggesting these photos. I think several years back a PA 747 photo was considered, but at the time the selection to choose from on Wiki was more limited. Photo going up shortly. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Boeing 747. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Squeezing in another image?[edit]

Thai Airways International Boeing 747-4D7 HS-TGP MUC 2015 03.jpg

I just came across this image, which is featured on Commons, and it occurred to me that we don't currently have a single FP of the queen of the skies here on enwiki, despite the multitude of photos that exist of it. I think this one has a fair chance: it's technically good and illustrates the takeoff well, showing the undercarriage, flaps and exhaust, with the control tower and terminal in the background providing context. Question is how to squeeze it into an already well illustrated article? --Paul_012 (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a 747-400. That image could replace one of images in the 747-400 variant section. If this does not work out here then check Boeing 747-400. --Finlayson (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2017[edit]

Request you review "hull loss" information. A hull loss is an aviation accident that damages the aircraft beyond economical repair, resulting in a write-off. The source (Aviation Safety Network) counts all damage to aircraft, not just those that fit the above definition, but also those that were repaired and returned to service. The correct number of 747 hull losses is probably 29. The source is Wikipedia article "List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft". Eugene.neiman (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The total listed in the Aviation-safety.net page is actually hull losses and accidents. I updated the numbers in the article section and corrected the wording to match. So I think this is resolved now. Note that other wiki pages are not reliable references on Wikipedia (see WP:RELIABLE). --Finlayson (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: Marking as answered. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)